Big victory for RFU in fight with diehards

By Mick Cleary

9:30PM BST 27 Apr 2001

IN much the manner that Clive Woodward's England swept all before them this season, so the Rugby Football Union came away with a significant victory at the Special General Meeting held late yesterday afternoon in central London, winning all seven resolutions by substantial margins.

They won the key resolution, the first under discussion, by 511 votes to 309. The proposal advocated that no agreement should be reached with the Premiership clubs without the consent of a general meeting.

"The impact of a defeat would have been very significant. "We would have had problems with all our future negotiations concerning the clubs, broadcasters and sponsors. The whole thing would have been thrown into confusion. I am very optimistic now that everything will settle down.

Related Articles

"The professional staff at Twickenham have worked wonders in turning things around in recent years. There are some real quality operators there. Tonight we saw that quality come out. I am sure that if there had been 800 people in the room rather than voting by proxy then there would have been very few against each resolution after hearing the RFU argument."

The RFU have yet to do a deal with the Premier clubs but they, too, will see this voting in a positive light. There is no doubt that if the RFU had failed to win over their membership the clubs would have high-tailed it off to do their own thing. Woodward's England squad would have been destroyed. "This has given us a vote of confidence to go forward," Brian Baister, chairman of the RFU management board, said.

The summit meeting took place at the Queen Elizabeth Centre, in the shadow of the Palace of Westminster. That house is used to bitter divide and in-fighting. So it was for a time across the road. One delegate from Sevenoaks spoke well from the floor about how surprised he was at the bitterness in the air.

He had obviously not been to many of these gatherings. Certainly other SGMs down the years have been blighted by far more vicious rhetoric. The cost of the SGM was in excess of £80,000.

Francis Baron, RFU chief executive, pledged that there would be annual roadshows round the country to explain the workings and the strategies. "Maybe a few years ago the management board was not aware enough of the feelings of the game," he said. "I've had feedback from over 500 clubs in the last couple of months. We have a strategic plan in place and we can now be held to account as to whether we deliver that."

The movers and shakers in the RFU had painted a dark scenario of what would befall the game in England if the resolutions were passed. "We will become a union of no action, no hope, and no future," Baister said. "These resolutions pose a real threat to the union and its future.

"They imperil the future of rugby at every level and are a recipe for complete chaos. And we can bid farewell to any influence in the world game. Decision-making would be put into complete abeyance and our day-to-day business would have to go into hibernation. A vote for the resolutions would render the RFU the laughing-stock of world sport."

Rogers was equally stark and forthright. "This meeting is a watershed," he said. "If these resolutions are passed then we will be looking down the barrel of a constitutional crisis at the RFU. A small group has forced this SGM and have come up with some questionable information for their resolutions. They even went as far as to suggest that some of our figures had been doctored. That impugns all those who work at Twickenham."

It was significant that even Graeme Cattermole, a notable voice of caution in the dealings with the Premiership clubs, spoke passionately against the fourth resolution, which proposed that no RFU grants should be made to the Zurich clubs. The RFU had already pointed out that the elite game would be self-financing within two years.

"These are the facts," said Cattermole, who has been chairman of finance at the RFU for four years. "Even though I am speaking against some old friends, I have to because what they propose is unworkable and not right for the future."